Causation chapt 4from spec Flashcards
How do you demonstrate that damage was caused by the breach?
C must demonstrate a causal link. between the breach of duty by the defendant and the damage suffered by the claimant
2 stage test for causation
Factual/ but for
There must be a factual link between the Ds breach of doc and the harm suffered by the claimant
Holt v edge 2007/ barnet v Chelsea and ken
Legal/remoteness/foreseeability
The type of harm suffered by the claimant must not be too remote in law if the claim is to be successful
Wagon Mound
Summary of tests for causation in fact
But for (Barnett v Chelsea and ken HMC 1969) Holt v Edge 2007
Quantification of risk (more probable than not) Wilscher v Essex AHA 1986 (more stringent than mc ghee) multiple potential causes
Material increase in risk - McGhee v NCB 1973
Multiple potential causes
Plus intervening acts
Successive and multiple causes of harm
Successive causes of harm-
did first injury lead to second?
Baker v Willoughby 1969- can claim for whole period
Jobling v Assoc dairies - where unrelated can only claim for interim
Multiple causes of harm- c must prove on bop more probable than not
Wilsher v Essex AHA 1986 (more strenuous than mc ghee)
Material increase in risk test and the case
When should this be used?
D may be liable if his breach materially increased increased the risk of damage.
Use in multiple causes
Case law:
Mc Ghee v NCB 1973
Intervening events (breaks in the chain)
3 types of situation (and cases)
Intervening act of claimant
Core v IBC Holdings 👎
Intervening act of nature- usually breaks chain
3rd party -Knightly v Johns 1982👍
Basic rule for causation in law
And which case?
Basic rule:
The type of injury must be foreseeable amd if it is, the D will be liable for it all.
Damages will only be given if type of injury is FORSEEABLE and not too remote (wagon mound 1961)
Thin skull rule -part of causation in law
Which cases (2)
“D must take his victim as he finds him”
If, because of a personal idiosyncrasy, the victim suffers more than would be expected, the D will be liable, provided the type of injury was foreseeable
Smith v Leech Brain 1962- guilty
Lagden v O Connor 2004- rule extends even to a claimants impecuniosity (lack of financial resources)
What about multiple tortfeasors in cases re asbestos?
Which cases (3)
Which Act?
C doesn’t have to show causation on bop, only that Ds conduct materially increased the risk of harm
Fairchild and others v Glenhaven 2002 (reversed Barker/corus)
-if 1 employer had materially increased the risk, the c could recover full damages from them and then D could reclaim from others/ reclaim from any one or all (joint and several)
And s3 Compensation Act 2006-
a d will be held jointly and severally responsible if he materially increased the risk of asbestos exposure
Sienkiewicz- don’t Have to prove on bop, but on material increase (similar to McGhee)
What is the effect of negligent medical treatment on the chain of causation?
Which case?
General rule is that such treatment may reduce the original Ds liability for the injury but not remove it completely
Webb v Barclays Bank plc and Portsmouth hospitals trust 2001
- negligence in advising amputation “had not eclipsed the original wrongdoing”
Medical profs rarely break chain due to public policy
What is the test for causation in law (remoteness) plus thin skull rule
And which cases?
Foreseeability of type of injury
The Wagon Mound (no1) 1961
Thin skull rule
Smith v leech brain 1962 (take victim as find them)
.If, because of a personal idiosyncrasy, the victim suffers more than would be expected, the D will be liable, provided the type of injury was foreseeable
Lagden v o Connor 2004 (extends to impenunosity- lack of financial resources)
